Why the Norway terrorist is NOT a Christian fundamentalist…

Posted on July 26, 2011 by elizabeth

A police official has called the Norway terrorist a “right-wing” Christian fundamentalist. And, of course, prestigious media outlets rushed to trumpet this shining nugget of factual integrity. Which, apparently, came as a surprise to the terrorist himself. He would like us all to know that he doesn’t even have a relationship with God.

From his 1,500 page manifesto:

So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians? If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian. (emphasis mine)

Well, that’s a new definition of “Christian” I’ve never heard before!

But I think what he’s saying is that plenty of people are cultural Christians –they might herald from Christian families and/or traditionally Christian nations but deny the very tenets of the faith themselves. It’s like Michael Corleone from The Godfather hitting the church for his baby’s baptism while also calling in a hit on his rival.

Michael Corleone was no more a Christian than the Norway terrorist, but to listen to the media, it’s almost like they can’t distinguish between violent, psychotic whackos and your garden-variety Christian who believes Jesus was God incarnate. Oh, wait. What? Does that mean EVERY Christian is a fundamentalist? Yes, and probably an evil murderer-in-waiting, too!

The real problem, here, is not Christianity. The issue is fundamentalism–a worldview that infects believers and non-believers alike. I’ve met vitriolic atheists just as often as I’ve met vitriolic Christians. Their beliefs–or non-beliefs–had nothing to do with their rigid mental outlook. It was the black-and-white mindset that was to blame for their hateful perspective.

The Norway terrorist isn’t a Christian fundamentalist…he’s a cultural fundamentalist.

What I define as a fundamentalist is someone who wants to reform, change or improve the culture using methods that contradict their own religion’s teachings.

A moderate form of this are fundamentalists who oppress women under the guise of “Biblical marriage.” An extreme form of this are secular fundamentalists who proposed eugenics as a means of “improving” the human population.

Fundamentalism is hurtful insofar as it artificially elevates non-essentials (ie. personal preferences, cultural ideals) or pet doctrines (“improved” human population) and encourages their propagation through harmful methods.

The Norway terrorist had 1,500 pages worth of pet doctrines. Maybe he was a cultural fundamentalist.

But he was no Christian.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, Politics, RecoveringFundamentalist, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.
  • KatR

    He self identifies as a Christian. Secular media outlets aren’t going to split hairs over what it means to claim Christianity as a “cultural platform” versus those who have a “personal relationship with Jesus”.

    And honestly, I think this:
    “Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform.”
    could be the unspoken “who we are” statement of a lot of American churches. Filled with a lot of American Christians. I’m not saying this on my high horse, because my only claim to Christianity is a cultural one.

    • Margaret

      He self-identifies as a “cultural Christian”, which by his definition is not theological Christianity.

      He also self-identifies as a “cultural Protestant” who wants the Protestant church to rejoin the Catholic church.

      Either way you cut it, he is not a “fundie” in the sense of conservative American Christians. Just doesn’t work out.

  • http://stmonicasbridge.wordpress.com Kristen @ St Monica’s Bridge

    While I agree with Kat, I have to state that I do see terrorism under the banner of Christianity in our own country, much like what you describe Elizabeth. People will soon realize that there is a significant difference between real Christianity and garden-variety.

  • MarkH

    My only interjection is that the Norway terrorist’s definition of Christian does NOT coincide with God’s at all. Quite the contrary… It is very clear in Scripture that one cannot be a “Christian” unless their relationship with their Lord and Savior is very deeply personal.

    • http://www.elizabethesther.com elizabeth

      Good point!

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    And my interjection is just to point out that after every terrorist attack by a Muslim, the vast majority of adherents to Islam who abhor such acts say pretty much the same thing. The terrorist was following a twisted, distorted version of Islam and wasn’t truly a Muslim.

    I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.

    • http://www.elizabethesther.com elizabeth

      True! Do you think there’s a a difference or not? I don’t hold ALL Muslims responsible for terrorist attacks–and believe that those who commit terrorist acts really are acting on a perverse, distorted understanding of their religion.

      • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

        Maybe we should call them “terroristic acts of violence”. I don’t think those who plan such acts ever represent a religion as much as they do a political agenda. They may use religion as a foil to snare the “true believer” but the agenda is usually something else. (Just look at the decades of troubles in Ireland where both sides were Christian.)

        Christians and Muslims and (though with a shorter history) atheists all have deep and rich history of atrocities. I think the atheistic governments of the 20th century have the highest body counts, but honestly that’s probably just because they had more and better technology to achieve them.

        One rule I’ve always had as I explored religions was to judge the religion based on their best, not their worst. That tells you much more and it also shows you the true goal or ideal of the faith. If all you want to do is dismiss a people, it’s easy to find examples of the worst with which to do it. Doesn’t really matter what group you pick.

    • KatR

      The whole idea of trying to “prove” that someone’s not acting like a “Christian” or a “Muslim” seems like a losing proposition to me. You could use the Bible and the Koran to justify acts of violence. God commanded the Israelites to kill children. And if the entire Bible is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, blah blah blah, then demented guy can say hey, I’m on a holy mission from God to shoot up a youth camp. (I’m not saying that this was Brevik’s view point. And yes, I still have Scripture burned into my brain. I’m trying to replace it with lines from “Bossypants”.)

      I guess what I’m TRYING to say in a very convoluted manner, is that if the vast majority of people in a group don’t behave violently, it’s not fair to tag them with the behavior of those who do. I find this easier to grasp than trying to prove who is or isn’t what.

    • Jack

      But there’s a serious question:

      Why do so many mahometans misunderstand their faith and indulge in acts of violence and terror?

      There have been 17,000 acts of terror sincee 9/11 committed by devout mahometans–and only one act by a self-identified cultural Christian.

      • KatR

        That would depend on what you define as terrorism. If everytime a Muslim acts violently its terrorism, while Christians who do so are just lone nutcases, it tends to skew the numbers.

  • http://www.ayoungmomsmusings.blogspot.com Young Mom

    “Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. ”

    -Well, that’s a new definition of “Christian” I’ve never heard before!-

    *Sigh* I knew I wasn’t a real christian. Maybe someday I will have a “personal relationship” with Jesus (although I doubt it, I’ve been trying for a long time now, and it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere) but until then I guess that all that church attendence and going through the motions doesn’t count for anything.

    • http://www.elizabethesther.com elizabeth

      i actually *do* think effort counts. in my book, you’re doing great! :)

    • http://www.grace-filled.net jen

      i think you’re making the effort and that it will come someday.

  • shadowspring

    I agree with KatR. He self-identifies as a Christian. The media is justified in calling him a Christian.

    The problem as I see it is all the religious rhetoric mixed in with fear-mongering right wing politics AND all the fear-mongering right wing politics mixed in with so many people’s religion. It’s a real phenomenon.

    Look at this respected religious news outlet, blaming the bullying of gay teens on the fact that these teens were gay/gay sympathizers. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=211837

    There is no way those of us who love Jesus and aim to live a life of devotion and love can distance ourselves from the bigotry and hatred, except to publicly denounce it. Saying “they were not REAL Christians” doesn’t cut it. That just sounds like we are making excuses. How about more of “as a Christian, I think it’s an abomination what was done in Norway under the banner of the Christian religion” instead of what comes very close to self-pity: “why is the media always picking on us?” Uh, maybe because the connection really does exist?